I'm trying to think if I've ever read a story where Republican senators are decrying a piece of their legislation as having to move "too far to the right" because they need to cater to the right-wing votes in their caucus. You can't either, right? It's only the Democrats who not only feel compelled to screw their base, they feel perfectly comfortable whining about it as if it's reasonable:
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), facing reelection next year, spoke up to oppose a plan being drafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad that would impose a new surtax on millionaires of about three percent on top of the higher tax rates they would face when the George W. Bush tax cuts expire next year, according to several people familiar with the exchange.
Nelson later explained through a spokesman that he was opposed to “double taxation,” even on the wealthy.
Another centrist on the budget committee, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), has also opposed the idea.
Several centrist Democrats (Editor's note: They mean "right wing Blue Dogs") have been voicing concern in private sessions that Conrad’s draft may be shifting too far to the left in order to placate liberals on the committee whose votes are needed to move the legislation, according to aides.
Republicans have been rallying around a House spending plan authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), even as they’ve been sending mixed signals in recent days over a key provision calling for a deep overhaul of Medicare.
The Democratic-run Senate, meantime, has been unable — or unwilling — to lay out its alternative agenda.
and blue dog Dems don't:
A new Pew Research analysis of voter typology, the first link below, shows what a mistake ignoring progressive ideas is for Democrats. I call your attention to one paragraph from the analysis (my emphasis), which mentions "New Coalition Democrats" and "Post-Moderns", two of the groups which Pew considers to be in the "Independent" category, voters who are often errantly collectively referred to as "swing voters", "centrists" or "the middle". This is not actually the case; Pew's data shows that voters in these groups are nearly as polarized as the "Staunch Conservatives" or "Solid Liberals" voters are. The Pew research notes that the data shows it is TURNOUT of these groups that is crucial for Democrats hoping to gain their votes, NOT that voters within these groups are switching their votes from/to Republican to/from Democrat.
This bears out my personal doubts on the viability of the strategy employed by many Democratic candidates, and more so by their Party leaders (see Obama, November 2010), to appeal to "the center" by taking wishy-washy positions, compromising with right-wing positions and avoiding clear progressive positions. This is well explained in a November 13, 2010 article in the second link below, partly reprinted below the link.
http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red...
"The 2010 midterms revealed the fragility of this (independent) electoral base. While both Solid Liberals and Hard-Pressed Democrats remained solidly behind Democratic congressional candidates in 2010, support slipped substantially among New Coalition Democrats and Post-Moderns – not because Republicans made overwhelming gains in these groups, but because their turnout dropped so substantially. Where two-thirds of New Coalition Democrats came out to vote for Obama in 2008, just 50% came out to back Democrats in 2010. The drop-off in the Democratic vote was even more severe among Post-Moderns, 65% of whom backed Obama, but just 43% of whom came to the polls for Democrats in 2010."
http://www.speakoutca.org/weblog/2010/11/the-...
"Have you heard of the "Moveable Middle?" This is the idea that there are voters on the left who will always vote on the left, and voters on the right, who will always vote on the right, and then there are voters between them who switch back and forth. They are called "swing voters."
So the idea in politics is that in order to win elections you have to take positions that appeal to these voters, and they will "switch" and vote for you instead of for the other side. This is a fundamental mistake.
Here is what is very important to understand about the "swing" vote: No voters "switch." That is the wrong lesson. There are not voters who "swing"; there are left voters and right voters in this middle segment who either show up and vote or do not show up and vote, and this causes this "swing" segment to swing.
The lesson to learn: You have to deliver for YOUR part of that swing segment or they don't show up and vote for you. That is what makes the segment "swing."
Any Democrat politician who thinks that any conservative will vote for any Democrat, no matter how far right they move, is learning the wrong lesson. All that does is cause your voters in that swing segment to turn away from you, and stay away from the polls."
now try to explain to "Democrats" ..
good luck!
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
is that any analysis of poll results which purport to prove a more liberal approach
is a winning approach is a correct analysis. Unfortunately, your "understandings" are often based on seriously flawed analysis of seriously flawed research. That happens to be the case here.
I would suggest to you that the reason why Democratic support dropped from 2008 to 2010 is not simply because of issues, but also because of the type of election. Notice how the Pew poll does not probe any issue difference between 2008 and 2010? So what is missing? 2008 had Obama. 2010 did not.
If you want to make a point about the Pew poll, be sure and read the issues questions. The two groups whose turnout is lamented by jorogo were not likely to turnout based on the "liberal" issues most here claim Democrats have not sufficiently championed.
TFR
If 2010 had had Obama the results of the election may well have been worse.
Obama had already revealed himself as a sellout.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
"While both Solid Liberals and Hard-Pressed Democrats remained solidly behind Democratic congressional candidates in 2010...."
(Pew Poll cited by the above commenter with whom you agreed.)
Aren't they the ones who were sold out? Boy are they the stupid ones, huh?
TFR
he'll call you a teabagger or a McCarthyite.
language, which you did.
TFR
What, pray tell, was my teabagger/McCarthyite language. By the way, I've got to hand it to you on the McCarthyite one. Haven't been accused of that yet. Teabagger is par for the course, though. That arrow always comes out of the quiver when the Obamabot starts losing the debate. Ape-man has used that one, and I think Ron has. So far, Peter G and Andy K have resisted what must be a nearly uncontrollable urge to wield that epithet when they see their Dear Leader disrespected. I now understand how Kim Jong Il has stayed in power so long.
which led to my use of those terms.
Attribution of false statements by implication and Klan comparisions aside, Kim Jon Il?
Really? And you wonder why others have shown restraint?
Gotta do supper with the family. Only telling you so you don't gloat at non responses. That seems to be a signal to idiots they have won some thread prize.
TFR
teabagger/McCarthyite assault warranted the Kim Jong Il comparison.
Bon apetit.
I am speaking strictly about you and your use or misuse of language.
TFR
So you're mad that I used "Mr. Hope and Change®" as Obama continues and expands most of Bush's worst policies? In other words, you're mad that I recognize "Hope and Change®" as the empty advertising slogan that it is?
I agree with the analysis, i disagree with the conclusion. I don't think the problem was that the Democrats ignored their "base." I think the problem is that the "base" such as former Republican Arianna Huffington, former Republican Cenk Uygar, former Republican Ed Schultz, present Libertarian Glenn Greenwald, ardent Hillary supporters Jane Hamsher and Paul Krugman were bound and determined to turn every victory, no matter how great, into a defeat. The "base" could easily of touted a message of "This is great considering we have only 60 dems, now let's try for 65!" but instead they shouted at the rooftops "HE'S BETRAYED US". They all received disproportionate media attention and they were all as on message as any Faux news broadcaster: Barack and the Dems aren't doing enough. The Dems were ready to counter the torrents from Faux news, but they weren't ready for the so called base to committ hari Kari.
Fortunately, i think their day is done, as the reforms they insisted that weren't work, they're going to look sillier and sillier. The amount people between 21-25 uninsured has fallen 4% thanks to ACA, the new student loan system is working great, DADT is being implimented ahead of schedule. All of these were thought of as "Betrayals".
They better start paying more in taxes. Because if this s**t continues, in a couple of years these rich pricks are going to be longing for the day that their only concern was paying more in taxes.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
just look at the youth riots in Greece
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
that will be the only way Washington and the rich and wealthy pay attention to us.
NOBODY 2012
several people familiar with the exchange. Another anonymos? Couldn't this story wait until you had some factual information Susie? Just asking.
"anonymos" (sic) in order to avoid petulant reprisals from party loyalists.
Let's see. For one thing extra taxation is not double taxation. Another thing would be the idea that the smallest minority within the Democratic party, progressives, constitute the base. A third thing would be that the Republicans are monolithicly supporting the Ryan proposal when it is clear that many do not and are regretting their vote for it. A fourth thing would be the complete inanity of conflating centrist democrats with 'blue dogs". As a piece of political analysis this is childish.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
screwed-under-the-bleachers progressive, one cannot "object" without it becoming a "whine."
TFR
Nelson and his ilk are not Democrats , they are Republicans who call themselves Democrats and they need to be purged right out of the Democratic party .
....that's my money!!! sniffle sniffle sniffle.....
Beer-i.e., God's Sweet Nectar- is a magic drink that makes you smarter, stronger, and more sexy.
-S. Colbert
No, we need MORE democrats, not less. Like it or not, without Nelson the many reforms we had last year would not of happened. Contrary to Susie's propoganda, the Democrats did succeed in giving us great and historical changes in the last Congress. But if you want even more changes, we need maorities like the ones we had in the 30s and 60s. There were what you call "conservadems" then too, but there were so many democrats, they had little clout.
But that's not likely to happen, not because the Dems haven't done a good job, but because so many people in the "Base" view ANY compromise, no matter how slight, as a good reason to stay home and beat on the "both parties are the same" drum.
See jorogo's comment below for the facts you claim to want. Turns out reality is sooooo much more important than the simplistic narrative in Insipid world.
I know this observation has been made before, but "Insipid" is a perfect screen name for you.
Yeah, I actually picked the screen name. And the observation isn't getting any more interesting the more it is made.
Exactly , more Democrats not more Republicans who call themselves Democrats . Get rid of these guys and replace them .
Yeah, if you can replace Ben Nelson with someone who's more liberal, GREAT. Good luck with that in Nebraska, but still, great. But were it not for the despised "blue dogs" there would not of been any reform at all last year. If you want to make them vote with you concentrate your efforts n getting the 70% majorities we had in the 60s and the 80% we had in the 30s. We can do that, but not with a purity test.
for which smart people like Howie Klein are working diligently laying the groundwork. Groundwork that will take years to accomplish. The idea that one can simply offer a progressive candidate in districts where it is barely possible to elect a blue dog democrat and expect success without laying the groundwork for success comes under the heading of totally unrealistic expectations.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
it is barely possible to elect a blue dog democrat in those districts is because progressives just yawn and roll over when they see yet another Blanche Lincoln on the ticket. (See Martha Coakley.) Well, that's one reason, anyway. Another reason is that blue dogs attract lots of money from WellPoint and Exxon, etc. whereas actual progressive need to cobble their campaigns together out of string and chewing gum. Yet another reason is the battered wife syndrome that compels so many people to vote for anything with a (D) after its name. I call this phenomenon (D)-nial.
Do you honestly believe Dennis Kuccinich could win State-wide in Nebraska? The man couldn't even win re-election in Cleveland.
I know that you have a fantasy that if Democratic values were properly articulated everyone would go THAT'S IT! and vote in 100 Bernie Sanders clones. But sadly that's not the case. The reason why Bernie Sanders wins in Vermont and Ben Nelson wins in Nebraska has more to do with Nebraska and Vermont than the two men.
We have history that tells us what strategy works and what doesn't. And that's to have as many dems as possible. An argument that i've made, that no one will address is the fact that in the 60 and 30s we had 70 and 80% majorities. And even with those majorities we STILL compromised. Do you really expect us to never compromise with 10 and 20% less Democrats? And now you're proposing we have less democrats still!
Nonsense. We have to stop self ameliorating. We have to work harder than the Republicans and put in as many Dems as possible. Remember the 50 state strategy? It's what howard dean said, and it's what i'm saying. We can't write off any dems.
James Carville, who campaigned for Harold Ford as party chairman, and Robert Gibbs, who didn't even have the decency to conduct his smear campaign in broad daylight.
Filling the Senate with Democrats is meaningless as long as half those Democrats are actually Republicans. And the reason Democrats compromised in the '60s and '70s was because of dildoes like Scoop Jackson and his moronic CDM, which is the same thing you're advocating.
And Kucinich in Cleveland? He should change his middle name to "I Told You So." The reason Kucinich lost in Cleveland is because he opposed a proposal to sell Muni Light to private interests -- a proposal backed by the Mary Landrieus and Ben Nelsons of Ohio, short-sighted corporate whores who you incessantly defend. In 1998, the Cleveland city council honored Kucinich for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks and saving the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995. Kucinich was able to parlay that into a return from the political wilderness only to face the wrath -- yet again -- of centrists like Kos (and presumably you) for not goose stepping in lock step with President Spineless McLiesalot and his bankster puppet court jester, Rahm Emanuel.
There are lots of examples of Democratic values being properly articulated and everyone would going, "THAT'S IT!" The immediate result is backstabbing from within their own party whose cushy private jets and all-expenses-paid golf outings are suddenly jeopardized.
If you truly want progressive reform and not the faux reform we've gotten over the last two and a half years, you will unite behind what Paul Wellstone (and Howard Dean) referred to as the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and abandon twats like Landrieu and Begich and Feinstein and Lieberman and....etc., etc., etc.
more good news from Mr. Hope and Change®.
should announce he wants to slow oil and gas production!
That will help get us all the "Whatever- Pew- Is-Calling- Them" Democrats and Independents pouring out to the polls from the gas pumps.
TFR
That Obama is employing hollow but politically expedient rhetoric?
for winners like Dean and Kucinich. On to Iowa in 2012!
TFR
would be winners if not for intra-party backstabbing.
.
TFR
So, you're not happy with Social Security and Medicare either? Unlike you I live in Cleveland, i was there at the time. Kucinich was lauded for saving Muni light, but he also ran the city into default.
As far as the "faux reform" remark. You're wrong. It's not even debatable anymore, you're just wrong and you're too obsessed with your narative to admit it. Here's the facts: the amount of people between 21 and 25 without health care has fallen 4% points because of the affordable care act. Aetna, because of the affordable care act is LOWERING insurance rates, Gays will be able to serve openly come October. I actually received a tax refund even though i'm on unemployment because of a tax credit for going to school. Plus i also get a cheaper student loan. These are real reforms, that are going to improve over time. And like the people from the left who were decrying FDR and LBJ's for compromising, you too are going to look silly.
History shows again and again that real like progress. They don't give up if they don't get what they want right away. Did MLK start bashing Lbj because he didn't get all he wanted with the 1964 Civil rights act? No, he fought harder and got the 1967 voting rights act.
There's never been a president that has accomplished anything that has not compromised. You're holding Barack obama to standards no president could live up to.
didn't run the city into default, the Cleveland Trust Company did by violating years of tradition and requiring all the city's debts to be paid in full, debts, mind you, incurred by Kucinich's predecessors. They did this to get revenge for Kucinich's refusal to sell Muni.
Wow. Four whole percentage points? So now instead of the 37th best health care system, we've risen to what? 36? Aetna may be lowering their rates, but not because of ACA. They're lowering rates because no one can afford health care after all the layoffs.
And gays will not be able to serve openly come October. See my comment above.
And I'm not holding Barack obama to standards no president could live up to; I'm holding him accountable, like he asked.
And speaking of LBJ and MLK, "LBJ listened, as intently as I ever saw him listen. He listened, and then he put his hand on Martin Luther King's shoulder, and said, in effect: 'OK. You go out there Dr. King and keep doing what you're doing, and make it possible for me to do the right thing.'"
See how he didn't whine and call MLK the "professional left" or a "retarded fucking liberal"?
without saying it, that Obama has whined, that he has called anyone "the professional left" or a "retarded fucking liberal."
You are employing teabagger logic and rhetoric.
TFR
I know several kids in that age group who are extremely grateful for the change. Would you like to tell them they have to fend for themeselves now because the health care bill wasn't pure enough for you?
The rates ARE being lowered by the ACA. I already gave you one link, here's another:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/working_my_b...
Barack in that speech asked them to push him, but he ALSO asked them to acknowledge his success. Your refusal to do the latter renders you incapable of doing the former.
MLK wasn't working to try and kill the 1964 civil rights legislation because it wasn't good enough, like Jane Hamsher did to health care reform. MLK never asked that people stay home and not vote like Ed Schultz did. The problem with the Pl is that they did spend those two years being fucking assholes and they deserved alll the punching they got and then some.,
publicly championing the public option even after he had already traded it away. And insurance carriers are writing the reform regulations, and Obama appointed WellPoint VP Liz Fowler to implement the legislation after she helped draft it.
Do you think if LBJ had appointed the former assistant Grand Wizard of the KKK to draft and implement the Civil Rights Act, MLK might have adopted a tone similar to Hamsher's?
I know several kids in that age group who are extremely grateful for the change.
First of all, that's just anecdotal evidence. Second of all, any interest group that gets what it wants is in favor of the applicable legislation. The number of people who remain uninsured dwarfs the 4% that you are bragging about. Is a 4% decrease in uninsured college kids an improvement? Sure. But, again, this inch-by-inch, consult-lobbyists-every-step-of-the-way approach is being embraced by the blue dogs you keep defending. You seem to be arguing that we should continue fighting while simultaneously complaining that ... people are continuing to fight.
to McCarthyite.
TFR
.
.
neck wasn't in the way. It is attached to your head, I assume.
TFR
It's not JUST anecdotal evidence, i gave you the stat. That's real progress and real change.
Remember who the first head of the SEC was? In case you can't it was Joseph Kennedy, he was also deemed as unacceptable because of his ties to big business. But he did a good job.
Is the health care bill a good bill and is it being implimented on schedule. I think the answer to both those questions is yes.
The public option WAS voted on by both houses of congress and Lieberman and nelson held an interview to kill it on national tv. I know you'd prefer to blame behind the scenes "he done me wrong" scenarios rather than your own lying eyes, but that's what happened.
And yes, it's sad that we didn't get the Public option. But 1. we can STILL get it and single payer. Having this makes THAT more possible. 2nd you focus on the public option but you forget about the 85% loss ratio. What insurance company would write a bill limiting their profits? None. You also forget that they're obligated to pay for all preventive care. Would an insurance company write a bill mandating that they give something away? No.
Plus the bill is already working in other ways. That 59% increase they wanted to perform in Californian? Did not happen because of the insurance regulators demands as put in by the ACA. Another company was going to raise their rates 16% and raised it to 9 because of the ACA.
The reality is not fitting your narative.
The headline of Susie's post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the political situation. It isn't the progressives who are the source of pressure on the conservative Democrats. There are less of them then there are conservative Democrats. It is the moderate and centrist majority, with the assistance of progressives, who are putting pressure on the conservative Democrats. This didn't stop the author of that rather insipid analysis with conflating these centrists with blue dog conservatives. Or Stop Susie from crediting the progressives for the work of those despised moderates. If the Senate is unwilling to release their alternative budget it is because they are still thrashing it out. They would be wise to take their time and get it right. Murshedz's post the other day showed a clearer understanding.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Plus with their constant whining they're NOT putting pressure on them. What they're doing is making theirselves non-entities. The Dems and President Obama passed a truckload of reforms the first two years and yet they STILL proclaim that President Obama is "barely" a dem or the best Republican president, or other proveably false nonsense.
So what do you do to people who can't be pleased unless if they get 100% of everything they want? You do what people do to the whining 3 year old at Wallmart. You ignore them. The reason they're courting independents is because they courted Liberals for the first 2 years and no matter what they did for them they were met with cries of "NOT FIGHTING HARD ENOUGH!"
So he's courting the middle more. Not a big surprise.
my use of "insipid" in my post was not a shot at you. You really ought to consider changing your handle. It clashes with your posts.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I wasn't replying to you Peter.
insipid, myself.
TFR
A true compromise is one thing but when one side continually gives and the other side for all practical purposes gives up nothing , that's capitulating not compromising .The Republicans have not won by playing Mr. Nice guy , they do not give one damn about compromise , being reasonable , appearance or fair play , we compromise and we lose . Time to draw the line and start calling their bluff instead of just giving them a free pass . People don't like or respect weakness, they like strength , the Democratic party's problem is weakness and people not having faith in them , not even knowing exactly what the hell they stand for .
... that by voting to reward and enable more Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans, I've done nothing more that continue to permeate the DNC with more rich well-to-do sellout house wiggers, house spiggers, and house ******s whose only idea of "The American Dream" is to become Republican plantation masters armed with useless shower of deliberately created mindless consumer drone illiterate and undereducated under-classes who'll can be relied on to perpetually hold their fuckin' snotlockers casting more and more effing retarded votes that just reward and enable them for 5 ... then 10 ... then 20 ... then 30 years?!?
Simple Answer: I can't.
When Rahm Emmanel said people like me were "fuckin' retarded" and Robert Gibbs said people like me "need to be drug tested", I took one look at my rapidly declining wages over my entire adult life and contrasted them against my father's rapidly increasing wages in the 1950s when he was the same age as me, and I said, "No shit, Sherlock" and permanently swung into the "No Longer Fucking Retarded" camp ...
As a result, I look forward to NEVER voting, NEVER contributing, NEVER compromising, NEVER rewarding, and NEVER enabling another DLC/Third Way fence jockey Defeatocrat until the party somehow manages to purge itself from these wretched and worthless fence jockey centrists and hock-and-pawn blue dog crooks and criminals, and get pretty liberal about a New Deal 2 and activist as all hell about it.
In the meantime, the only vote the DNC could possibly filch from my particular fork of my family tree is by pulling a Vince McMahon/WWE and going PG -- marketing their BS to the 18 to 34 "Kiddult" demographic and going full bore with their "Hope" and "Change" slogans, catchphrases, empty assed platitudes, and thus throwing me under the same fuckin' bus they threw my father under in 1980 by rallying behind Reagan with a curt and crystal clear youaretheveekustlink, g'bye.
It is a working class vs the greedy fucks who do no useful work issue.
They are parasites, useless eaters, and our world would be better off without them.
Pay up or leave the planet.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Who are the real free loaders ?
Site monitor;
Is there a way to get this meet blue america thingy from popping up every 20 or so seconds on my screen? It is really annoying.
Oh, there it is again..............:(
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
What he needs is a primary challenge from the left. They should paint him as someone who is more sympathetic to the right which he is. He and Begich should be reminded that it was their caucus of phony blue dog Dems who got their asses handed to them back in November. They need to be told that there's a reason why their numbers have shrunk and that they could be next! The Republican position has turned off Seniors and there are plenty of them in Florida who could boot his ass!
where REAL progressive Alan Gryason got his ass handed to him by a Taliban
supporter? Isn't he from a state where the Democrat running for the US Senate finished third against two Republicans?
Geez, if only we could run people who were more liberal than even Alan Grayson!
TFR
I'll disagree with you here a bit. I think a travesty that anyone like lieberman should represent Connecticut. We should push for and get as Liberal a congress as we can. But i also think we should fight smart. Start by pushing for better liberals in the blue states. There's always been "conservadems" in the past. They just didn't matter as much because we had HUGE majorities.
One lesson that Blue Dogs NEVER learn?
Democrats who keep acting like Republicans always lose to real Republicans eventually.
Fuck these spineless Whoreporatist Democratic assholes.
.
TFR
2) He had massive financial opposition from the Orwellian named "Citizens United".
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
But it doesn't fit his all-centrist-all-the-time narrative.
If lack of support from the DLC and financial ooposition from Citizen United defeated Grayson,
then neither of you can argue that a candidate who takes far more progressive stands on issues would win because such stands will motivate increased "progressive" turnout.
But don't let logic trip either of you up.
BTW, how much did the DLC put into his race when Grayson won in 2008? Who was at the top of the ticket that year?
TFR
was when he said - and I paraphrase -
all political struggle is class struggle.
There has been a civil/class war being waged in this country since the 70's, only progressives were not aware of it until recently. Remains to be seen if the left has been absent from the field to long to make their return significant.
I kind of recall Wall street reform, banking reform, and Health care reform somehow passing in their "absence".
All three were gifts to Big Money.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
And those have been soooooo successful, haven't they?
We have yet to see with Healthcare, but as for banking and Wall St..... (profits soar, no one has been charged, insider trading persists, etc., etc.)
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
To answer your question, yes i can recall Republicans complaining many times about their base dregging them too far to the left. I kind of recall Arlen Specter leaving his party because it went too far to the right, and I recall Jim Jeffords becoming an independent, and caucusing with the Democrats, switching control of the entire body. But god forbid facts should get in the way of the "Democrats love to screw the base" meme. Because narative is sooooo much more important than reality in Susie world.
Speaking of reality, it turns out that thanks to the affordable care act Aetna is actually LOWERING its rates:
http://ctmirror.org/story/12550/aetna-seeks-c...
But I know that story is not nearly as important as the latest conservadem said something we don't like story.
Nelson is a member of the "Family" a C Street pray boy. Their objective is toeliminate every secular program, have no taxes and keep all the cash for the "new chosen"--the rich and powerful.
We need a third party choice because the Republicans & Democrats of today are two branches of the same rotten tree, we have more wars , torture, spying on Americans and more of our money for Wall Street . Wall Street & the Banksters ruined our economy ,Congress & the last TWO Presidents (Obama & Bush) bail them out with our money and we have to give up more every day and people still think the Democrats will do right by us. Wake up people You don't give the "Democrats" enough money for them to really care what happens to you, they are as mercenary as any Republican.
Mike Perkins MFSO-MN
The bail out happened under Bush. It's been mostly repaid under Obama. The Democrats HAVE done right by us. The fact is there is a consumer protection agency, people between 21-25 are no longer the people most likely to be uninsured, banks can no longer charge you limitless overdraft fees. Come October first, gays will be able to serve openly in the military.
That being said i have no problem with third parties. The problem is that none of the whiners want to work for it, get instant runn-off voting on the ballots, get candidates to run for state offices, work from the ground up. The fact that the third party people, Nader especially, have been unwilling to do that, indicates to me that they're more interested in killing democrats than building a third party. Does not impress me.
But Tres. Sec. Geitner ( spelling ?) was supposed to use some money to help people with their mortgages and he gave it ALL to Wall St. & Banks , with Pres. Obama's blessing. It is long past time for repeal of DADT , I agree. I am very disappointed though that Pres. Obama ( who I eagerly supported) is as big a warmonger as Bush could have hoped for. He is not someone I will vote for a second time though,
Mike Perkins MFSO-MN
Come October first, gays will be able to serve openly in the military.
Not true. Not even close.
The passage of the repeal act does not result in the immediate repeal of DADT. Under the terms of the new law, the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must certify in writing that they have reviewed the Pentagon's report on the effects of DADT repeal, that the appropriate regulations have been reviewed and drafted and that implementation of repeal regulations "is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces". Once certification is given, a 60-day waiting period will begin before DADT is formally repealed.[63]
Representative Duncan D. Hunter announced plans in January 2011 to introduce a bill designed to delay DADT repeal. Should his bill be adopted, all of the chiefs of the armed services would need to submit the certification currently required only of the President, Defense Secretary and Joint Chiefs Chairman.[64]
In January 2011, Pentagon officials stated that the training process to prepare troops for the repeal would begin in February and would proceed quickly, though it might not be completed in 2011.[65]
Obama will find some way to snatch this defeat from the jaws of victory, mark my words.
Oh, you're just making shit up right now because you prefer to be mad. The implimentation is actually going AHEAD of schedule. Again, this is just showing despderation on your part.
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/18974/blade-c...
The fact is that any change like this will have an implimentation period, and it should. But again, you prefer a narative over facts. It has happened, deal with it.
It's right there in the bill. In order for DADT to end in October, Obama et al. will need to sign the cerfication by August 1st, making an October implementation optimistic at best.
I know it's there in the bill. Did you think it would pass WITHOUT an implimentation period? Right now according to all sources i see, implimentation is going ahead of schedule.
http://military-online.blogspot.com/2011/04/m...
I know it galls you to give Obama or Dems credit for anything, but you're just wrong on this.
and he enforced DOMA. You know why he finally made DADT a priority and stopped rigorously enforcing DOMA? Because of pressure from the Left. I know it galls you to acknowledge that DADT and DOMA would both still be in full effect if not for that pressure, buy you're just wrong in this.
Here's a deal: If the DADT certification is signed by August 1st allowing for repeal to go into effect by October as you have repeatedly claimed, I will type in a comment thread here on C&L in all caps, "Insipid was right about DADT and I was wrong." But if October comes and goes and DADT is still in effect, you have to do the same. Deal?
Presidents of the past, how long did it take after VJ day for Truman's Executive Order to desegreagate the US Armed Forces. And how long after that for the Army to integrate?
TFR
The reason Truman desegregated the military was because he was afraid of losing the black vote to Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace.
SO HE WAS WRONG TO DO SO? IF IT WERE LEFT TO SMALL MINDS WHERE WOULD THIS COUNTRY BE?
pressure from the left caused Truman to act. The main point of this discussion is that Obama and his defenders continually whine about pressure from the left while simultaneously championing the accomplishments of previous Democrats that would never have occurred without that pressure.
who Truman replaced as Vice President, fired as Commerce Secretary, got 2.4% of the vote, mostly in New York on another party's ticket, zero electoral votes and who would later back Ike and Nixon for President?
Another of those principled Progressives.
To his credit Wallace did admit later in life he was wrong about Stalin. Nader never said a nice thing about those spiffy later model Corvairs.
TFR
That guy. I see you have Wikipedia.
But we're not discussing Wallace's principles. We're discussing the mechanics of pressuring Presidents to enact legislation. Truman didn't know Wallace would only get 2.4%. Besides, the 1948 election was close; 2.4% could've been the difference. You know, DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN and all that. Besides, how come 2.4% is so little in this case but so much in Nader's case. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either Wallace was of little consequence or Nader was. Which is it?
electoral influence. Just his inherent self righteousness.
TFR
.
.
But thanks for your concern. I'm sure Ricky is glad to have such a powerful advocate in his corner.
It took Truman over three years of what a left wing loon would call foot dragging, from V-J Day in 1945 until the summer of 1948, to issue the Executive Order to end segregation in the Armed Forces. It would not be until 1953 that 95% of blacks in the Army served in integrated units.
Like the typical self centered white liberal, you credit fear of a white liberal, Henry Wallace for causing this instead of organized black pressure by A. Philip Randolph and other black leaders.
Politics entered the picture, and there was concern over Wallace. But as early as 1947, Truman was advised by Clark Clifford that dramatic action was needed or the black vote would go to Thomas Dewey. Not Wallace. Dewey.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2206548
TFR
It took you just over an hour of digging to find that gem. That's pretty good considering you hadn't even heard of Henry Wallace until I mentioned him. Also, your citation indicates that Clark Clifford was worried about Wallace and Dewey. Not Dewey. Wallace and Dewey.
To wit:
"Clifford particularly emphasized the importance of the Negro vote, warning that because of Henry A. Wallace's growing identification with the civil rights issue and Thomas E. Dewey's presumed popularity with Negro leaders..."
It continues: "In order to outbid the Republicans and steal Wallace's thunder..."
I mean, did you think I wouldn't even read your citation?
read the rest of Clifford's recommendations:
"Its recommendations...must be tailored for the voter, not the Congressman. They must display a label which reads, 'no compromises.'"
Clifford also said that "in formulating national policy, [the South] can be safely ignored."
How does that differ from my complaints about Obama? For years, now, I have been saying that Obama's policies "must be tailored for the voter, not the Congressman." And the chorus of opposition I get in response from you and Insipid and Andy K and Ron and Peter G is that we need the blue dogs and it doesn't matter what the voters think, "you just don't understand the political process." And not only do I think that in formulating national policy, the South can be safely ignored, I feel it's imperative to do so. Obama, on the other hand, continually accommodates the South, which is what he's doing now with his calls for more domestic drilling.
never read where I said it didn't matter what voters think.
Yeah, because Lieberman and Nelson are both prominent southerners.
I also take issue with your characterization of my position. I want liberal ideas and liberal principles. But every great liberal advance came from some compromise. You can't name one since the founding of this country that hasn't come from that. As galling as it is for you to admit, big the truth is that pragmatists are the ones that get things done. That the real liberal base are the ones supporting Obama and pushing hard, not the ones throwing tomatoes from the side lines. When these bills get fully implimented they're going to be enormously popular and undoing them will be as unthinkable as undoing medicare and SS is now. In fact, as i stated before, the bills are already working. Single payer will be a reality in Vermont thanks to the ACA. Aetna is lowering its rates thanks to the ACA. 21-25 year olds can get insurance thanks to the ACA. These are tangible actual results and the things not even half way implimented. It's going to be successful, it may very well lead to universal single payer health care and it will of gotten done because of the pragmatists and despite of the whiners.
And you'll pretend like you supported it all along.
Obama didn't say, "I'm trying really hard to get the public option, but members of congress -- even some in my own party -- are making it difficult because of their close ties to the insurance industry."
Instead, he said the public option was "still on the table" months after he had already dealt it away. That's what progressives are throwing tomatoes over. Progressives are throwing tomatoes over "fuck the UAW." They're throwing tomatoes over being labeled the professional left just a couple months after being asked to hold him accountable. They're throwing tomatoes over being called "retarded fucking liberals." They're throwing tomatoes over Obama overruling congressional Democrats on the prescription repurchase plan. They're throwing tomatoes over extending the Patriot Act after he campaigned against it and and over expanding Bush's warrantless wiretapping program and over raiding anti-war activists and over raiding medical marijuana dispensaries after he said he wouldn't.
In short, it's Machiavellian prevarications that has progressives pissed off.
of Michelle Rhee also has progressives pissed off.
I like the fact that the only time you'll believe Tom Daschle on anything is when he's waxing conspiracy theories about Obama. Did you count up the number of times he said "I think" and "i feel" in it. And of course there's no possibility of bitterness over the fact that he wasn't put in charge of the process, is there?
It was voted on by both houses and it failed to get the votes. Despite all that he still got a good bill that was actually MORE than he campaigned on. The 85% loss ratio and the free preventive care will make more of a difference in the life of the average person than even the most robust form of public option proposed.
If it isn't true, the White House can sue him for libel. Ergo, the White House's silence speaks volumes. And what about all the other stuff I mentioned? But here, I'll make it simple for you: Is there anything that you don't like about the president or the way he has handled things? Is there one thing you're disappointed about?
Why is it always incumbent on Obama supporters to say bad things about the President in order to prove their objectivity?
Yeah, i think his letting Congress on recess without passing health care last August was a really dumb idea. I don't think he should of allowed that.
Now you prove your objectivity by telling me, without a "yeah but" prevarication tell me what you feel he's done right.
The "Making Work Pay" tax credit was pretty cool. Student Loan Reform was also a good idea, but kind of a no-brainer. I mean, it's like no longer twisting someone's arm. It's good, but long overdue and, as with health care, far less than what most other Western industrialized nations offer. I seem to recall he did something with the Endangered Species Act that was good, but I don't remember the details now. He seems to be genuinely behind high-speed rail, which is a good thing. I think that's actually moving forward. I'm generally in favor of the Stimulus Package, but not without some really, really big "yeah, buts." For example, Whirlpool shouldn't be allowed to close its Evansville, Indiana plant and open one in Mexico after accepting around $6 billion in stimulus funds. There's a lot of that. His executive order requiring companies with federal contracts to disclose their political contributions was a good-but-minor move. There's probably one or two others I'm overlooking right now.
So you can't do it without a "yeah but". I thought so. All of those other western countries started somewhere. Also, not all of them get rid of their private companies, they just regulate the hell out of them. Which is what the ACA does. You'd know that if you read the actual markdown of the legislation rather than what bloggers say about it.
normal people refer to as nuance. When historians write about America's decline and fall, they will identify blind partisan loyalty as one of the chief causes.
I think you're far more "blind" than i am. And you're partisan but to the whiner class. The people that love to hold President Obama to a far different standard than any other president in history. LBJ, FDR, Truman, hell even lincoln were all compromisers to get things done, but now, only with Obama is that suddenly an unforgivable sin. You blindly ignore his successes and turn yourself into pretzels to paint them as failures. In your world he didn't "really" pass DADT, Vermont isn't going single payer largely because of the ACA act and Aetna is lowering its rates out of pure largess rather than being forced to. No amount of facts will steer your one inch from the narative of Obama as the great betrayer.
The one here who lacks nuance is you. With you it's either a health care bill with the public option or nothing at all. Doesn't matter how much else is in there or what he got in return, it's either entirely your way or the highway. Glas Steagal must be re-instated or that's a betrayal. If there's any adjustment period of DADT that too is somehow a betrayal. You're the one lacking nuance, not me.
he campaigned on. Again, Obama campaigned on the public option, no mandates and no tax on so-called "cadillac" insurance plans. What did we get? No public option, mandates and a tax on "cadillac' insurance plans, the exact opposite of what he said. During his campaign, he famously courted the union vote by saying, "If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I'll walk on that picket line." But then his chief of staff said "fuck the UAW" and he championed anti-union corporate shill, Michell Rhee.
He didn't campaign by saying "we have to re-think unions." He courted the UAW and the teachers union. He courted civil liberties activists. He courted Net Neutrality activists. And he courted progressives. And he betrayed all of the above. It's right there in living color. If you can't see it, then you're the one who's blind. If it had been McCain or Bush who had made those reversals, you'd be first in line to do the bashing. But since it's your Dear Leader, you turn a blind eye, just like you turn a blind eye to the dozen or so citations I've used supporting my view.
since it indicated that the concern was with Dewey, not Wallace, winning the black vote.
You are fundamentally intellectually dishonest. So never assume or assert anything about what I know compared to you or how much time I spend responding to you.
TFR
When I start petulantly tossing around terms like "teabagger" and "McCarthyite," you can call me intellectually dishonest. Until then, you can eat a fat bag of salty sailor dicks.
Again you're just making shit up to fit your narative. Obama NEVER changed his views on DADT. Not. One. Single. Time. You can't name a speech a public comment a paper or anywhere else where he waivered one bit. You're just saying that in a pathetic and desperate attempt to add some relevance to the constant whining you've been doing.
As far as the deal goes. Fine.
Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout
When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier's challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.
...
The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban.
Enforcing a law, is NOT the same as agreeing with it. If he didn't enforce it, and just let it go, Congress would be under less pressure to pass it, and then it would just be enforced again by the next Republican President.
Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA
President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the legal prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
So by not defending DOMA, he's extending its life?
What about when he said he would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries? Is it your assertion that by backing away from his pledge to stop the raids, he is bringing about a change in the federal statutes regarding marijuana? He's quite a chess player, isn't he? Either that or he's just a liar.
They don't need or care about the middle class any more because it is a world economy now. They keep the defense industry well paid , ( 2012 Pentagon budget is up again to $1.2 trillion) start new wars around the globe in the constant "War on Terror" and the American war machine will keep the Empire going so there is a constant flow of money to them, corporations pay for their elections now so we are an insignificant source of money to Congress.
Mike Perkins MFSO-MN
but the requests for application/approval into all the military acadamies ,through the congress critters(thats how you get there),is up 5 fold...compared to 2008........best job in america,the warr machine....also heard yesterday that 85% of college grads are moving back home,no jobs. anyone seen the army commerical where they say...."change your uniform,play for a team."....it is a clip of a football game!
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
why can't democrats ask Blue Dogs to leave and stop calling themselves Democrats. Blue Dogs should call themselves what they are: republicans. I'd rather be in the minority with real Democrats than always being undermined by cretin republicans calling themselves democrats.
We'd get nothing done, give full power to the party of crazy, but we'd feel so righteous and pure as the country falls to shit that it won't matter! Yay.
bill nelson needs to go.
he has supported corporations and big banks
for so long that the whinning he makes is from
stepping on his own balls every day.
bill nelson is a fake democrat, fuck him.
it was Bill Nelson, the good democrat from Florida that was progressive. Ben Nelson from Nebraska is the blue dog. I know that in Susie's leadoff she said Bill Nelson but since it only seemed that some insiders were saying that some senators were whining, I kind of ignored the subject. It looks like some of the commenters thought she was talking about Ben Nelson even though she clearly stated Bill Nelson in the leadoff. Who are we going to hate as a democrat today?
Anyone who thinks today's Democratic party is somehow going to "save the day" is seriously deluded. They might be slowing, somewhat, the never-ending rightward shift, but they aren't going to stop it.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I guess, if this is the best you can do it must be good enough, right?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Does anyone really believe there is still a 2 party system? Wake up, people. The war is over, the rich won, and they got all government in the settlement.
They're ALL MILLIONAIRES! That's what we get for electing only rich people to represent us. Campaign finance reform would remedy that but they'll never vote to end their own private gravy train. Most of our representatives represent themselves, not us.
The energy, time and money wasted for cheering for your team in the two-party race would be much better spent on getting more parties going. Does anyone think Americans are divided so neatly as to be "left" and "right"? Not that either party is "left", just one is not as far right as the other.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Comments are closed on this entry